Urinary fistula after robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy: a multicentre analysis of 1 791 patients

Objective To evaluate the incidence of and risk factors for a urine leak in a large multicentre, prospective database of robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN). Patients and Methods A database of 1 791 RPN from five USA centres was reviewed for urine leak as a complication of RPN. Patient and tumo...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BJU international 2016-01, Vol.117 (1), p.131-137
Hauptverfasser: Potretzke, Aaron M., Knight, Brent Alexander, Zargar, Homayoun, Kaouk, Jihad H., Barod, Ravi, Rogers, Craig G., Mass, Alon, Stifelman, Michael D., Johnson, Michael H., Allaf, Mohamad E., Sherburne Figenshau, Robert, Bhayani, Sam B.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 137
container_issue 1
container_start_page 131
container_title BJU international
container_volume 117
creator Potretzke, Aaron M.
Knight, Brent Alexander
Zargar, Homayoun
Kaouk, Jihad H.
Barod, Ravi
Rogers, Craig G.
Mass, Alon
Stifelman, Michael D.
Johnson, Michael H.
Allaf, Mohamad E.
Sherburne Figenshau, Robert
Bhayani, Sam B.
description Objective To evaluate the incidence of and risk factors for a urine leak in a large multicentre, prospective database of robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN). Patients and Methods A database of 1 791 RPN from five USA centres was reviewed for urine leak as a complication of RPN. Patient and tumour characteristics were compared between patients with and those without postoperative urine leaks. Fisher's exact test was used for qualitative variables and Wilcoxon sum‐rank tests were used for quantitative variables. A review of the literature on PN and urine leak was conducted. Results Urine leak was noted in 14/1 791 (0.78%) patients who underwent RPN. The mean (sd) nephrometry score of the entire cohort was 7.2 (1.9), and 8.0 (1.9) in patients who developed urine leak. The median (range) postoperative day of presentation was 13 (3–32) days. Patients with urine leak presented in delayed fashion with fever (two of the 14 patients, 14%), gastrointestinal complaints (four patients, 29%), and pain (five patients, 36%). Eight of the 14 patients (57%) required admission, while eight (57%) and nine (64%) had a drain or stent placed, respectively. Drains and stents were removed after a median (range) of 8 (4–13) days and 21 (8–83) days, respectively. Variables associated with urine leak included tumour size (P = 0.021), hilar location (P = 0.025), operative time (P = 0.006), warm ischaemia time (P = 0.005), and pelvicalyceal repair (P = 0.018). Upon literature review, the historical incidence of urine leak ranged from 1.0% to 17.4% for open PN and 1.6–16.5% for laparoscopic PN. Conclusion The incidence of urine leak after RPN is very low and may be predicted by some preoperative factors, affording better patient counselling of risks. The low urinary leak rate may be attributed to the enhanced visualisation and suturing technique that accompanies the robotic approach.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/bju.13249
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1750432648</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1750432648</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3889-5781e2d36994b36129dfd9a0092ad81401f821a4c936be923813bc207c3e24d63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10E1KAzEYBuAgiq3VhReQgBtdtM3fpIk7Lf4iuLHgbsjMfINT5qcmGWR2HsEjeBaP4klMbetCMJuEL09eyIvQISUjGtY4mbcjypnQW6hPhRRDQcnT9uZMtOyhPefmhISBjHZRj0nGI0VYH8HMFrWxHc4L59vSYJN7sNg2SeO_3t6Nc2EOGV4Y6wtT4hoWzxZS31TdGTa4aktfpFB7C9jUpuwCx02O6efHRNPwyhfh0u2jndyUDg7W-wDNri4fpzfD-4fr2-n5_TDlSulhNFEUWMal1iLhkjKd5Zk2hGhmMkUFobli1IhUc5mAZlxRnqSMTFIOTGSSD9DJKndhm5cWnI-rwqVQlqaGpnUxnUREcCaFCvT4D503rQ1fWCqhmVIR1UGdrlRqG-cs5PHCFlXoK6YkXnYfh-7jn-6DPVontkkF2a_clB3AeAVeixK6_5Pii7vZKvIb5H2ObQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1749288519</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Urinary fistula after robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy: a multicentre analysis of 1 791 patients</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Potretzke, Aaron M. ; Knight, Brent Alexander ; Zargar, Homayoun ; Kaouk, Jihad H. ; Barod, Ravi ; Rogers, Craig G. ; Mass, Alon ; Stifelman, Michael D. ; Johnson, Michael H. ; Allaf, Mohamad E. ; Sherburne Figenshau, Robert ; Bhayani, Sam B.</creator><creatorcontrib>Potretzke, Aaron M. ; Knight, Brent Alexander ; Zargar, Homayoun ; Kaouk, Jihad H. ; Barod, Ravi ; Rogers, Craig G. ; Mass, Alon ; Stifelman, Michael D. ; Johnson, Michael H. ; Allaf, Mohamad E. ; Sherburne Figenshau, Robert ; Bhayani, Sam B.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective To evaluate the incidence of and risk factors for a urine leak in a large multicentre, prospective database of robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN). Patients and Methods A database of 1 791 RPN from five USA centres was reviewed for urine leak as a complication of RPN. Patient and tumour characteristics were compared between patients with and those without postoperative urine leaks. Fisher's exact test was used for qualitative variables and Wilcoxon sum‐rank tests were used for quantitative variables. A review of the literature on PN and urine leak was conducted. Results Urine leak was noted in 14/1 791 (0.78%) patients who underwent RPN. The mean (sd) nephrometry score of the entire cohort was 7.2 (1.9), and 8.0 (1.9) in patients who developed urine leak. The median (range) postoperative day of presentation was 13 (3–32) days. Patients with urine leak presented in delayed fashion with fever (two of the 14 patients, 14%), gastrointestinal complaints (four patients, 29%), and pain (five patients, 36%). Eight of the 14 patients (57%) required admission, while eight (57%) and nine (64%) had a drain or stent placed, respectively. Drains and stents were removed after a median (range) of 8 (4–13) days and 21 (8–83) days, respectively. Variables associated with urine leak included tumour size (P = 0.021), hilar location (P = 0.025), operative time (P = 0.006), warm ischaemia time (P = 0.005), and pelvicalyceal repair (P = 0.018). Upon literature review, the historical incidence of urine leak ranged from 1.0% to 17.4% for open PN and 1.6–16.5% for laparoscopic PN. Conclusion The incidence of urine leak after RPN is very low and may be predicted by some preoperative factors, affording better patient counselling of risks. The low urinary leak rate may be attributed to the enhanced visualisation and suturing technique that accompanies the robotic approach.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1464-4096</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1464-410X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/bju.13249</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26235802</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BJINFO</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Aged ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Nephrectomy - adverse effects ; partial nephrectomy ; Postoperative Complications - epidemiology ; Postoperative Complications - therapy ; Retrospective Studies ; Robotic Surgical Procedures - adverse effects ; robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy ; Stents ; Urinary Fistula - epidemiology ; Urinary Fistula - etiology ; Urinary Fistula - therapy ; urine fistula ; urine leak</subject><ispartof>BJU international, 2016-01, Vol.117 (1), p.131-137</ispartof><rights>2015 The Authors BJU International © 2015 BJU International Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2015 The Authors BJU International © 2015 BJU International Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>BJUI © 2016 BJU International</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3889-5781e2d36994b36129dfd9a0092ad81401f821a4c936be923813bc207c3e24d63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3889-5781e2d36994b36129dfd9a0092ad81401f821a4c936be923813bc207c3e24d63</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8424-1087</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fbju.13249$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fbju.13249$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26235802$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Potretzke, Aaron M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Knight, Brent Alexander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zargar, Homayoun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaouk, Jihad H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barod, Ravi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rogers, Craig G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mass, Alon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stifelman, Michael D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Michael H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Allaf, Mohamad E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sherburne Figenshau, Robert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhayani, Sam B.</creatorcontrib><title>Urinary fistula after robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy: a multicentre analysis of 1 791 patients</title><title>BJU international</title><addtitle>BJU Int</addtitle><description>Objective To evaluate the incidence of and risk factors for a urine leak in a large multicentre, prospective database of robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN). Patients and Methods A database of 1 791 RPN from five USA centres was reviewed for urine leak as a complication of RPN. Patient and tumour characteristics were compared between patients with and those without postoperative urine leaks. Fisher's exact test was used for qualitative variables and Wilcoxon sum‐rank tests were used for quantitative variables. A review of the literature on PN and urine leak was conducted. Results Urine leak was noted in 14/1 791 (0.78%) patients who underwent RPN. The mean (sd) nephrometry score of the entire cohort was 7.2 (1.9), and 8.0 (1.9) in patients who developed urine leak. The median (range) postoperative day of presentation was 13 (3–32) days. Patients with urine leak presented in delayed fashion with fever (two of the 14 patients, 14%), gastrointestinal complaints (four patients, 29%), and pain (five patients, 36%). Eight of the 14 patients (57%) required admission, while eight (57%) and nine (64%) had a drain or stent placed, respectively. Drains and stents were removed after a median (range) of 8 (4–13) days and 21 (8–83) days, respectively. Variables associated with urine leak included tumour size (P = 0.021), hilar location (P = 0.025), operative time (P = 0.006), warm ischaemia time (P = 0.005), and pelvicalyceal repair (P = 0.018). Upon literature review, the historical incidence of urine leak ranged from 1.0% to 17.4% for open PN and 1.6–16.5% for laparoscopic PN. Conclusion The incidence of urine leak after RPN is very low and may be predicted by some preoperative factors, affording better patient counselling of risks. The low urinary leak rate may be attributed to the enhanced visualisation and suturing technique that accompanies the robotic approach.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Nephrectomy - adverse effects</subject><subject>partial nephrectomy</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - therapy</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Robotic Surgical Procedures - adverse effects</subject><subject>robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy</subject><subject>Stents</subject><subject>Urinary Fistula - epidemiology</subject><subject>Urinary Fistula - etiology</subject><subject>Urinary Fistula - therapy</subject><subject>urine fistula</subject><subject>urine leak</subject><issn>1464-4096</issn><issn>1464-410X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp10E1KAzEYBuAgiq3VhReQgBtdtM3fpIk7Lf4iuLHgbsjMfINT5qcmGWR2HsEjeBaP4klMbetCMJuEL09eyIvQISUjGtY4mbcjypnQW6hPhRRDQcnT9uZMtOyhPefmhISBjHZRj0nGI0VYH8HMFrWxHc4L59vSYJN7sNg2SeO_3t6Nc2EOGV4Y6wtT4hoWzxZS31TdGTa4aktfpFB7C9jUpuwCx02O6efHRNPwyhfh0u2jndyUDg7W-wDNri4fpzfD-4fr2-n5_TDlSulhNFEUWMal1iLhkjKd5Zk2hGhmMkUFobli1IhUc5mAZlxRnqSMTFIOTGSSD9DJKndhm5cWnI-rwqVQlqaGpnUxnUREcCaFCvT4D503rQ1fWCqhmVIR1UGdrlRqG-cs5PHCFlXoK6YkXnYfh-7jn-6DPVontkkF2a_clB3AeAVeixK6_5Pii7vZKvIb5H2ObQ</recordid><startdate>201601</startdate><enddate>201601</enddate><creator>Potretzke, Aaron M.</creator><creator>Knight, Brent Alexander</creator><creator>Zargar, Homayoun</creator><creator>Kaouk, Jihad H.</creator><creator>Barod, Ravi</creator><creator>Rogers, Craig G.</creator><creator>Mass, Alon</creator><creator>Stifelman, Michael D.</creator><creator>Johnson, Michael H.</creator><creator>Allaf, Mohamad E.</creator><creator>Sherburne Figenshau, Robert</creator><creator>Bhayani, Sam B.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8424-1087</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201601</creationdate><title>Urinary fistula after robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy: a multicentre analysis of 1 791 patients</title><author>Potretzke, Aaron M. ; Knight, Brent Alexander ; Zargar, Homayoun ; Kaouk, Jihad H. ; Barod, Ravi ; Rogers, Craig G. ; Mass, Alon ; Stifelman, Michael D. ; Johnson, Michael H. ; Allaf, Mohamad E. ; Sherburne Figenshau, Robert ; Bhayani, Sam B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3889-5781e2d36994b36129dfd9a0092ad81401f821a4c936be923813bc207c3e24d63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Nephrectomy - adverse effects</topic><topic>partial nephrectomy</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - therapy</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Robotic Surgical Procedures - adverse effects</topic><topic>robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy</topic><topic>Stents</topic><topic>Urinary Fistula - epidemiology</topic><topic>Urinary Fistula - etiology</topic><topic>Urinary Fistula - therapy</topic><topic>urine fistula</topic><topic>urine leak</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Potretzke, Aaron M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Knight, Brent Alexander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zargar, Homayoun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaouk, Jihad H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barod, Ravi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rogers, Craig G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mass, Alon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stifelman, Michael D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Michael H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Allaf, Mohamad E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sherburne Figenshau, Robert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhayani, Sam B.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>BJU international</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Potretzke, Aaron M.</au><au>Knight, Brent Alexander</au><au>Zargar, Homayoun</au><au>Kaouk, Jihad H.</au><au>Barod, Ravi</au><au>Rogers, Craig G.</au><au>Mass, Alon</au><au>Stifelman, Michael D.</au><au>Johnson, Michael H.</au><au>Allaf, Mohamad E.</au><au>Sherburne Figenshau, Robert</au><au>Bhayani, Sam B.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Urinary fistula after robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy: a multicentre analysis of 1 791 patients</atitle><jtitle>BJU international</jtitle><addtitle>BJU Int</addtitle><date>2016-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>117</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>131</spage><epage>137</epage><pages>131-137</pages><issn>1464-4096</issn><eissn>1464-410X</eissn><coden>BJINFO</coden><abstract>Objective To evaluate the incidence of and risk factors for a urine leak in a large multicentre, prospective database of robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN). Patients and Methods A database of 1 791 RPN from five USA centres was reviewed for urine leak as a complication of RPN. Patient and tumour characteristics were compared between patients with and those without postoperative urine leaks. Fisher's exact test was used for qualitative variables and Wilcoxon sum‐rank tests were used for quantitative variables. A review of the literature on PN and urine leak was conducted. Results Urine leak was noted in 14/1 791 (0.78%) patients who underwent RPN. The mean (sd) nephrometry score of the entire cohort was 7.2 (1.9), and 8.0 (1.9) in patients who developed urine leak. The median (range) postoperative day of presentation was 13 (3–32) days. Patients with urine leak presented in delayed fashion with fever (two of the 14 patients, 14%), gastrointestinal complaints (four patients, 29%), and pain (five patients, 36%). Eight of the 14 patients (57%) required admission, while eight (57%) and nine (64%) had a drain or stent placed, respectively. Drains and stents were removed after a median (range) of 8 (4–13) days and 21 (8–83) days, respectively. Variables associated with urine leak included tumour size (P = 0.021), hilar location (P = 0.025), operative time (P = 0.006), warm ischaemia time (P = 0.005), and pelvicalyceal repair (P = 0.018). Upon literature review, the historical incidence of urine leak ranged from 1.0% to 17.4% for open PN and 1.6–16.5% for laparoscopic PN. Conclusion The incidence of urine leak after RPN is very low and may be predicted by some preoperative factors, affording better patient counselling of risks. The low urinary leak rate may be attributed to the enhanced visualisation and suturing technique that accompanies the robotic approach.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>26235802</pmid><doi>10.1111/bju.13249</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8424-1087</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1464-4096
ispartof BJU international, 2016-01, Vol.117 (1), p.131-137
issn 1464-4096
1464-410X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1750432648
source MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library
subjects Aged
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Nephrectomy - adverse effects
partial nephrectomy
Postoperative Complications - epidemiology
Postoperative Complications - therapy
Retrospective Studies
Robotic Surgical Procedures - adverse effects
robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy
Stents
Urinary Fistula - epidemiology
Urinary Fistula - etiology
Urinary Fistula - therapy
urine fistula
urine leak
title Urinary fistula after robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy: a multicentre analysis of 1 791 patients
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T18%3A21%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Urinary%20fistula%20after%20robot%E2%80%90assisted%20partial%20nephrectomy:%20a%20multicentre%20analysis%20of%201%C2%A0791%20patients&rft.jtitle=BJU%20international&rft.au=Potretzke,%20Aaron%20M.&rft.date=2016-01&rft.volume=117&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=131&rft.epage=137&rft.pages=131-137&rft.issn=1464-4096&rft.eissn=1464-410X&rft.coden=BJINFO&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/bju.13249&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1750432648%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1749288519&rft_id=info:pmid/26235802&rfr_iscdi=true